People always have to consider the old saying: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...WS1PMHvmBex.99

Please, nobody take this the wrong way. It is just a simple observation of fact :-

Female (or male) attraction is just an inescapable part of our inner animal that we, by calling ourselves human, have attempted to sweep under the carpet.

No amount of etiquet or social conditioning will remove this basic drive that is in all of us.

Being attracted to a passing female/male is nothing more than being the male/female of our species.

This is an unexpected response from someone who laments the decay of society allegedly caused by the "gutter media." There needs to be a certain level of personal responsibility and also a modicum of understanding for the ladies.

I feel bad about your experience. But you have to understand it is not all together unexpected nor is it something to get really upset over. Next time just ask or make sure they can't see you taking the picture. That's my advice anyway. Lighten up. It's not like you killed someone or someone charged you with a crime. I'm sure you will have many more years of fun street photography.

NOW we're presented with a new conundrum. The pigeon in that photo noted by Ming Rider above, happens to be a member of WPPPA. Yep, The World Professional Photographed Pigeons Association. A pigeon's union. If our urban-parked vehicles and black camera bags start looking like someone has been squeezing our fine feathered friends on them, we'll know why.

Frankly, I don't know where this might all stop. Pigeons have rights, next sea gulls, sea otters, the Marine Mammal Protection Act will be amended to include photographic licensing and individual releases for seals, sea lions, whales, otters. DOGS !!! A dog will be required to indicate consent through it's owner/agent before being photographed. I believe this may occur sooner than 20 years.

ASMP may soon be recruiting people who have "Whale-Speak" ability to negotiate with them for an exclusive right to photograph them. This is truly an outrage. And to think I used to be a member of ASMP., NPPA and SPCA. I fear the end is near but I pray I'm wrong.

I'm afraid we may be forced back into the dark ages to live again in our darkened studios beneath the focusing cloths, hiding in shame and humiliation with deep regret, never being able to take another photograph in a public place again. <sigh>

What's next? [That's a rhetorical question btw]

_________________________________
Without guys like John Coltrane, Count Basie and Duke Ellington, life....would be meaningless.

Do you really believe it is ok for an adult to interact with a child without gaining parental permission first? Are you a parent?

He did not interact with the kid. He took a picture of a child who was jumping over the back of a bench between old people on the bench, drawing attention to himself.
If a parent yelled at me for taking a picture of their kid jumping over a bench repeatedly, I would say that parent has a distorted view of what is acceptable behavior in adults, hers as much as mine.
And perhaps also what is acceptable behavior in children. More even than children who are unruly, children who are allowed to give others the finger.

What does it mean to "interact"? Is watching a child jumping over a bench considered interacting? Are we to keep our eyes averted now, for fear of causing alarm? If a ball rolls to us, are we not to pick it up and toss it back or hand it to the child? If we are walking along, and children pass by, are we not to say hello or even nod?
Are we to constantly fear the wrath and judgment of others if we so much as glance at kids without their protectors' permission? There must be a limit somewhere. A person following children around with a camera is not comparable to someone sitting on a bench taking pictures of a child romping, as the OP was doing.

Last edited by lxdude; 07-07-2013 at 08:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Not long ago I was at a public park and someone nearby had a really nice Weimaraner. I pointed my camera at it and the owner said to me, politely but firmly... "I try to protect the identity of my dog so I charge $5 per shot." so I said, "OK" and lowered my camera. The guy said that he was just kidding but I repeated myself. Then the begging started... "Why, o why, won't you photograph my dog?"

People always have to consider the old saying: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...WS1PMHvmBex.99

Then the presumption is, "Looks like a legitimate photographer, acts like a legitimate photographer..."

I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Then the presumption is, "Looks like a legitimate photographer, acts like a legitimate photographer..."

The given description was "My attire today was brown walking boots, dark blue jeans and a black 'Motorhead' tour T-Shirt." Is that how a "legitimate photographer" dresses? Different folks will feel differently about this 'look'.

... and would a "legitimate photographer" take relatively close up photos of a child without asking the parent?

That is your choice. I wasn't trying to command anyone to shoot in any particular way. What I was commenting on is if you want to stalk and photograph a stranger's children without so much as a hello or introduction you have to expect that eventually you will run into someone who objects. And given enough time you will come across someone who objects in an inappropriate way. It is just hyperbolic to claim such a situation is illustrative of some kind of downward spiral of urban society and that it makes you physically ill. Play the game any way you want but when you throw snake eyes don't complain.

I shoot suriptiously sometimes. I don't do it with children. But I know if I am caught someone might object. That's just part of the game.

Sure, it is like stalking game. We enjoy the hunt. Weegee wrote about that. We just don't intend to hurt / kill as the real hunter does. But we all have the same excitement getting a nice shot, freezing time, etc. The non photog maybe does not realize this. If they did, they would not think much about what we do. Just as we usually don't when we see another devotee of the camera.

But it can turn out ugly. I read one gal got killed in Hollywood for shooting a beggar. A fight errupted when she would not pay for her cell phone photo and she got stabbed. But as I read more about it, it seemd her mouth may have been a big factor, more so than not paying 50 cents. But I don't have all the facts.

If someone is worried about street, they should ask first or do some other form of freezing time. No one is arguing that every situation is different and trouble can errupt. If and when your not comfortable, don't do it.